Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
English variety where "what it's" is grammatical[edit]
I think I've heard there's a variety of English (might be a creole) where sentences like "What it's is..." or "It's what it's" (as opposed to "what it is") are possible. Do you know what that's? Nardog (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily in English, stressed words don't contract (cliticize to the preceding word), and in the sentence "It is what it is", both occurrences of "is" are stressed. I can't rule out that there's some form of English without such a constraint, but it would probably be rather remote from quasi-standard English. AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It's what it's doing that matters" is normal (British) English, but that sentence moves the stress on to "doing". -- Verbarson talkedits 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Beer" is marginally possible (though in a context that makes it clear that there's not a reference to an alcoholic beverage -- see "beable"), but the others are not. In English, modals can have two forms (can/could, may/might, will/would) or one (must, ought). In no case are there non-finite forms. AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person who can can is a potential canner. People who can professionally are canners. A person who must muster is an obligatory musterer. --Lambiam 07:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beer was a beer but is now a waser. The OED has an entry for it with the definition "One who is or exists; sometimes spec[ifically] the Self-existent, the great I Am", calling it obsolete and rare. They give three usages, the earliest dating from before 1382 and the latest from 1602. No joy on cannerormuster. --Antiquary (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have "do-er", so "be-er" might be more easily understood than "beer". Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Usenet-famous character who used to throw the word "beable" around, for some reason. I never knew exactly what it was supposed to mean. But a nice explanation someone came up with is that it's the ontological counterpart to the quantum notion of an observable. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
[reply]
